ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Counterinsurgency by Air

Somehow this Government Executive article about the Air Force looking to get in on the counterinsurgency game doesn’t leave me feeling any rosier about the Defense Department’s new alleged focus on irregular warfare. The same old bureaucratic imperatives seem to be in play, except now instead of the military focusing on conventional conflicts because that’s what justified expensive hardware, we’re now going to have all the same equipment and inter-service politics, but everyone will just assert that it’s all about the counterinsurgency.

The Air Force, for example, “has taken to touting show of force missions as a vital tool in counterinsurgency.” What does that mean? Well, it involves “low-level fly-overs” that are “intended to intimidate opponents on the ground.” For example, “Jet aircraft fly a few hundred feet above rooftops in downtown Baghdad and drop a string of flares.” Greg Grant, the reporter on the story, nicely deadpans that “it’s difficult to discern how show of force demonstrations compete with an enemy who cuts off its opponents’ heads and leaves the bodies lying in the streets.”

What about the fact that the use of air strikes in counterinsurgency situations creates civilian casualties on a level that makes them massively counterproductive? Well, General. Allen Peck, director of the Air Force Doctrine Center, “agrees that recent air strikes, particularly in Afghanistan, have caused civilian casualties and generated ill will.” Nevertheless, he assures us that “the Air Force follows strict rules before dropping bombs, Peck says, constantly refining the process to minimize possible civilian deaths.” I’ve made this point before, but while I’m sure there’s some truth to this, the basic reality is that the Pentagon doesn’t even count civilian casualties, so they can’t possibly know whether or not they’re minimizing them and, on some level, they’re obviously not taking that mandate very seriously.

Politics

Michael Moore talks health care crisis with Oprah.

Michael Moore’s new film on health care, Sicko, premieres everywhere on June 29. (Much more about Sicko HERE.) Moore recently spoke with Oprah Winfrey about America’s broken health care system, and showed several exclusive clips from the film. Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/06/moreopra615.320.240.flv]

Earlier this week, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), whose congressional health care bill the campaign supports, said: “The release of Michael Moore’s ‘Sicko’ is one of the most important developments in the national debate on our health care crisis since the Clintons attempted to pass universal health care legislation in 1994.”

Climate Progress

U.N. Secretary General Is Quite Confused

bizarro.jpgBan Ki Moon has an 0p-ed in the Washington Post which opens with this stunning statement:

Just over a week ago, leaders of the world’s industrialized nations met in Heiligendamm, Germany, for their annual summit. Our modest goal: to win a breakthrough on climate change. And we got it — an agreement to cut greenhouse gases by 50 percent before 2050.

Uhh … no. Europe and Canada and Japan agreed, but the U.S. and Russia just said they would “seriously consider” achieving that goal.

Apparently Moon is Secretary General of the Bizarro World’s U.N. (if that isn’t redundant).

Politics

Special Counsel Probe Into Rove’s Politicization Of Government Advances

The Office of Special Counsel, which has already recommended that GSA chief Lurita Doan be suspended or fired for participating in partisan activities while on the job, is now moving forward with its investigation of nearly 20 other administration agencies.

Eighteen agencies have been asked by the Office of Special Counsel to preserve electronic information dating back to January 2001 as part of its governmentwide investigation into alleged violations of the law that limits political activity in federal agencies.

The OSC task force investigating the claims has asked agencies, including the General Services Administration, to preserve all e-mail records, calendar information, phone logs and hard drives going back to the beginning of the Bush administration. The task force is headed by deputy OSC special counsel James Byrne.

The White House has admitted that roughly 20 agencies have received a PowerPoint briefing created by Karl Rove’s office “that included slides listing Democratic and Republican seats the White House viewed as vulnerable in 2008, a map of contested Senate seats and other information on 2008 election strategy.”

Politicization of the federal government has been illegal for decades. The 1939 Hatch Act specifically prohibits partisan campaign or electoral activities on federal government property, including federal agencies. But in 2005, Ken Mehlman, formerly one of Bush’s top political advisers, outlined the White House’s strategy of utilizing government resources for partisan gain:

One of the things that can happen in Washington when you work in an agency is that you forget who sent you there. And it’s important to remind people that you’re George Bush people. … If there’s one empire I want built, it’s the George Bush empire. [One Party Country, p. 102]

With that imperial partisanship in mind, the Bush White House has engaged in an unprecedented quest to politicize the federal government, giving briefings and PowerPoint presentations everywhere from the Interior Department to NASA on how to secure Republican victories. Said one Interior Department manager, “We were constantly being reminded about how our decisions could affect electoral results” (One Party Country, p. 103). Bush loyalists in federal agencies have also helped generate millions for favored political candidates.

Security

U.S. Citing Conservative Calls To Bomb Iran To Pressure Diplomats

Calls for a U.S. military strike on Iran have grown in recent weeks. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) notably called for Americans “to be prepared to take aggressive military action” against Iran. Norman Podhoretz wrote “The Case for Bombing Iran,” the cover story in the latest Commentary magazine, “widely regarded as the leading outlet for neoconservative writing.” Other prominent neoconservatives, including William Kristol, Fred Kagan, and John Bolton have echoed this line.

The calls have apparently become serious enough that Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, “the chief American strategist on Iran,” has begun using them to pressure foreign diplomats. The New York Times reports:

Mr. Burns and officials from the Treasury Department have been trying to use the mounting conservative calls for a military strike to press Europe and Russia to expand economic sanctions against Iran. Just last week, Israel’s transportation minister and former defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, visited Washington and told Ms. Rice that sanctions must be strong enough to get the Iranians to stop enriching uranium by the end of 2007.

While Mr. Mofaz did not threaten a military strike, Israeli officials said he told Ms. Rice that by the end of the year, Israel “would have to reassess where we are.”

The Times reports that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has “increasingly moved toward” the position that “a military strike would be disastrous.” But Vice President Cheney’s office is well known to feel very differently. In February, the Washington Post reported that John Hannah, Cheney’s national security adviser, said during a meeting that the administration considers 2007 “the year of Iran” and “indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility.”

Politics

Private contractors in Iraq stage “parallel surge.”

“Private security companies, funded by billions of dollars in U.S. military and State Department contracts, are fighting insurgents on a widening scale in Iraq, enduring daily attacks, returning fire and taking hundreds of casualties that have been underreported and sometimes concealed, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials and company representatives.”

While the military has built up troops in an ongoing campaign to secure Baghdad, the security companies, out of public view, have been engaged in a parallel surge, boosting manpower, adding expensive armor and stepping up evasive action as attacks increase, the officials and company representatives said. [...]

The majority of the more than 100 security companies operate outside of Iraqi law, in part because of bureaucratic delays and corruption in the Iraqi government licensing process, according to U.S. officials.

Politics

Second Sunni mosque destroyed in Basra.

Hooded gunmen clad in black blew up another Sunni mosque in the southern city of Basra today after ordering the police officers at the mosque to flee, and despite a curfew imposed by Iraq’s central government, witnesses and security officials said.

16cnd-iraq1190_165—217shkl.jpg

The blast at the Al-Ashrah Al-Mubashra mosque in central Basra — the second Sunni mosque razed in as many days — suggested that Shiite militias south of the capital have rejected calls for restraint from Iraqi leaders after explosions Wednesday toppled two minarets at a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra.

The latest attack immediately heightened tensions between Sunni and Shiite officials, and for some, seemed to confirm that Iraq’s central government has lost the ability to exert much influence, not just on areas of the Kurdish North, but also majority-Shiite strongholds in the South.

Politics

NBC’s Tim Russert

on presidential candidates refusing to have Fox News sponsor their debates: “It’s a TV show. If you can’t handle TV questions, how are you going to stand up to Iran, and North Korea, and the rest of the world?

Steve Benen and Arlen Parsa explain why Russert is wrong. Atrios also highlights this exchange:

Hannity: I think the Democrats have gone further left than anybody would have anticipated. I think these bloggers have really gotten to them. I think they’re really positioning themselves that they’re gonna have a very difficult time moving center. Do you see that?”

Russert: Absolutely…

Yglesias

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran

Serious leakage in The New York Times where we learn in a more on-the-record sense than before of a split pitting Condoleezza Rice “against the few remaining hawks inside the administration, especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office who, according to some people familiar with the discussions, are pressing for greater consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.” Thus far, Rice continues to have the upper hand, and rightly so.

The one thing I would observe about this is that even if neither President Bush (listening to Rice) nor Supreme Leader Khameini (listening to the Iranian version of Rice) want war, there’s still a very dangerous situation. You have a lack of institutionalized diplomatic relations between the two countries, and almost 200,000 American soldiers and unknown numbers of Iranian personnel of various sorts in countries bordering Iran. There’s a lot of scope there for provocations, incidents, and incidents and other problems of various sorts. Add in to the mix your Cheneys and your Ahmadenijads trying to push everything toward escalation and there’s no telling what could happen.

Photo by Flickr user Koldo used under a Creative Commons license

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up